#I'm sure this is a subject of discourse somewhere but I am not touching that <3< /div> Explore tagged Tumblr posts

[all-for-the-game-confessions]

I really can't believe I'm doing this... I was never more glad about the anon function in my life. Every second word I check if I did in fact switch anon on. Because this confession will get me killed otherwise.

I have a problem with the Roland discourse and it's for the opposite reason most people take issue with Roland.

Please let me explain and go with me on this journey.

Laws are there to protect people. Having a law against sexual relationships with minors is to protect minors. In this case you protect them from being taken advantage of, manipulated, hurt etc.

The age of 18 is not more than a 'good guess'. We assume that people reaching that age have a certain amount of live experience and a general understanding of how the world works and what dangers there are you need to be careful about. That's fine. You need to draw the line somewhere, if you want to have such a law. I am not arguing where that line should be. There are far smarter people than me who hopefully made an educated decision there.

Let's look at general age gaps for a second. What is a too big age gap and what isn't is very subjective. There is no real objective answer to this and of course the perception highly varies when it comes to the phases of life. A 5 year age gap between people in their 40s is not as bad as if they are in their 20. And so on. I don't want to argue about the age gap either. It's for you to decide what is a comfortable age gap for you.

So what do I want to argue about?

I want to argue about the assumption that Andrew needed to be protected by the law when it comes to Roland. I want to argue the assumption that Roland would have been able to take advantage of Andrew.

We don't know a lot about what went down with those two exactly.

We know Andrew blew him. We don't know what age Andrew was when it started. We know there is an 5-6 year age gap I think? We don't know who approached whom or if Roland knew how old Andrew was when it happened. We know Andrew used cuffs on Roland because he touched him too much. We don't know how those touches looked like exactly.

What we also know is that Andrew knew inside and out how manipulation looked like. We know he knew what SA looked like. We also know that he put a knife to Nicky because of a rape 'joke'.

What bothers me so much in these discussions about how creepy Roland is, is that they take away all the agency from Andrew. Andrew consented and Andrew made sure the interactions went exactly how he wanted them to go.

Yes sure, you can find it creepy that Roland consented to it as well. Yes, maybe he should have said no because of the age gap. But the age gap is only a problem if you assume that Andrew didn't know what he was doing. Because otherwise it was just Andrew enjoying blowing someone in the broom closet.

Andrew would not have done that if he didn't want to. Roland would be dead long before he would have been able to do anything against Andrew's will. And it's not like Roland went after Andrew. He stayed put behind the bar and broke the law for Andrew by drugging other people for him.

I really don't care about Roland as a character. I am not defending him or his actions. I want to make this clear. This is not the point I am making.

My point is: Twisting this thing between Andrew and Roland to Roland being a creep and a predator infantilizes Andrew and paints him as a kid who doesn't know better and who is too vulnerable to make his own decisions or who doesn't know what the stakes are. It takes away his agency. And I hate that.

.

[saltatio-favillae]

if Ive learned anything by browsing bloodborne fanfic it's that I really don't like romantic pairings between the doll and the hunter